A Mamdani Type Fuzzy Inference System to Calculate Employee Susceptibility to Phishing Attacks
Source abstract
Abstract
It is a well known fact that the weakest link in a cyber secure system is the people who configure, manage or use it. Security breaches are persistently being attributed to human error. Social engineered based attacks are becoming more sophisticated to such an extent where they are becoming increasingly more difficult to detect. Companies implement strong security policies as well as provide specific training for employees to minimise phishing attacks, however these practices rely on the individual adhering to them. This paper explores fuzzy logic and in particular a Mamdani type fuzzy inference system to determine an employees susceptibility to phishing attacks. To negate and identify the susceptibility levels of employees to social engineering attacks a Fuzzy Inference System FIS was created through the use of fuzzy logic. The utilisation of fuzzy logic is a novel way in determining susceptibility due to its ability to resemble human reasoning in order to solve complex inputs, or its Interpretability and simplicity to be able to compute with words. This proposed fuzzy inference system is based on a number of criteria which focuses on attributes relating to the individual employee as well as a companies practices and procedures and through this an extensive rule base was designed. The proposed scoring mechanism is a first attempt towards a holistic solution. To accurately predict an employees susceptibility to phishing attacks will in any future system require a more robust and relatable set of human characteristics in relation to the employee and the employer.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Spam and Phishing Detection · Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Information and Cyber Security
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
Department of Computer Science, Guelma University, Guelma 24000, Algeria
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. Systematic Review on Social Engineering: Hacking by Manipulating Humans
2. Aldawood, H., and Skinner, G. (2018, January 4–7). Educating and Raising Awareness on Cyber Security Social Engineering: A Literature Review. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Wollongong, Australia.10.1109/TALE.2018.8615162 ↗
3. Frauenstein, E.D., and Solms, R.V. (2014). Combating Phishing: A Holistic Human Approach, Information Security for South Africa.10.1109/ISSA.2014.6950508 ↗
4. The people problem: How cyber security’s weakest link can become a formidable asset10.1016/S1361-3723(20)30006-3 ↗
5. Darwish, A., Zarka, A.E., and Aloul, F. (2012, January 18–20). Towards understanding phishing victims’ profile. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Industrial Infomatics, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.10.1109/ICCSII.2012.6454454 ↗
6. Parthy, P.P., and Rajendran, G. (2019, January 1–3). Identification and prevention of social engineering attacks on an enterprise. Proceedings of the International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST), Chennai, India.10.1109/CCST.2019.8888441 ↗
7. A framework for effective corporate communication after cyber security incidents10.1016/j.cose.2020.102036 ↗
8. Ferrara, J. (2021, September 15). Why Most Cyber Security Training Does not Work. Available online: https://www.proofpoint.com/us/security-awareness/post/why-most-cyber-security-training-doesnt-work.
9. Zuraiq, A.A., and Alkasassbeh, M. (2019, January 9–11). Phishing detection approaches. Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on new Trends in Computing Sciences (ICTCS), Amman, Jordan.10.1109/ICTCS.2019.8923069 ↗
10. Assessment of employee susceptibility to phishing attacks at US health care institutions10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0393 ↗
11. De Bona, M., and Paci, F. (2020, January 25–28). A real world study on employees’ susceptibility to phishing attacks. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Virtual Event, Ireland.10.1145/3407023.3409179 ↗
12. Shahbaznezhad, H., Kolini, F., and Rashidirad, M. (2020). Employees’ Behavior in Phishing Attacks: What Individual, Organizational, and Technological Factors Matter?. J. Comput. Inf. Syst., 1–12.10.1080/08874417.2020.1812134 ↗
13. Salem, O., Hossain, A., and Kamala, M. (July, January 29). Awareness program and ai based tool to reduce risk of phishing attacks. Proceedings of the 2010 10th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology, Bradford, UK.10.1109/CIT.2010.254 ↗
14. Shirsat, S.D. (2018, January 20–21). Demonstrating different phishing attacks using fuzzy logic. Proceedings of the 2018 Second International Conference on Inventive Communication and Computational Technologies (ICICCT), Coimbatore, India.10.1109/ICICCT.2018.8473309 ↗
15. Fuzzy sets10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X ↗
16. Wang, C. (2015). A Study of Membership Functions on Mamdani-Type Fuzzy Inference System for Industrial Decision-Making, Lehigh University.
17. Risky business: Safety regulations, risk compensation, and individual behavior10.1136/ip.6.2.82 ↗
18. The contemporary security vetting landscape10.1080/02684527.2019.1665688 ↗
19. (2021, June 28). GOV.UK, Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-security-vetting-clearance-levels/national-security-vetting-clearance-levels.
20. Job satisfaction and employee turnover determinants in Fortune 50 companies: Insights from employee reviews from Indeed.com10.1016/j.dss.2021.113582 ↗
21. Why organisational readiness is vital in the fight against insider threats10.1016/S1353-4858(20)30092-1 ↗
22. Askew, K.L. (2012). The Relationship Between Cyberloafing and Task Performance and an Examination of the Theory of Planned Behavior as a Model of Cyberloafing, University of South Florida, Department of Psychology.
23. Can cyberloafing and Internet addiction affect organizational information security?10.1089/cyber.2017.0239 ↗